Technology Adoption of Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 5 Issue 2, January-February 2021 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
@ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD38437 | Volume – 5 | Issue – 2 | January-February 2021 Page 317
Technology Adoption of
Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty
Ma Olga DC Alvarez
Cebu Technological University – Main Campus, MJ Cuenco Ave. R. Palma St., Cebu, Philippines
ABSTRACT
The researched assessed the technology adoption of on line performance
evaluation system for faculty of Golden Success College for Academic Year
2019-2020 towards web base application adoption. There were a total of one
hundred ninety-two (192) respondents. The study made use of descriptive
normative method of research. Frequencies, percentages,ranksandweighted
means were used to describe data. Based on the gathered data, the research
revealed that technology adoption of online performance evaluation for
faculty as perceived by the respondents is acceptable, thus the system using
web application should be implemented.Furthermore,itisrecommendedthat
the web application will be deployed at Golden Success College in order to
improve the teaching performance of the faculty which is essential to school
operation.
KEYWORDS:TechnologyManagement, TechnologyAdoption, OnlinePerformance
Evaluation, Web Application, Descriptive Normative –Research, Cebu City
Philippines
How to cite this paper: Ma Olga DC
Alvarez "Technology Adoption of Online
Performance Evaluation System for
Faculty" Publishedin
International Journal
of Trend in Scientific
Research and
Development(ijtsrd),
ISSN: 2456-6470,
Volume-5 | Issue-2,
February 2021,
pp.317-345, URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd38437.pdf
Copyright © 2021 by author(s) and
International Journal ofTrendinScientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of
the Creative
CommonsAttribution
License (CC BY 4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS RESEARCH DESIGN
Rationale
The performance evaluation is a review based upon an
individual’s job performance and tasks. A supervisor
typically looks at an employee’s skills and undertakings
during a specific time period and tracks whether the
employee has lived up to expectations, outdid them or failed
to meet preferred results.
Ideally, performanceevaluationsdelivera stepping-stone for
the employee and supervisor to identify and discuss areas
where performance can be improved. It can also be an
important chance for employeeandmanagerexpectations to
be secured or clarified.
Evaluations are often seen as credentials of past
performance. Some businesses are even using themasa tool
for reviewing employee development. Completed properly,
they can lead to an improved understanding of personal and
professional aims. This approach can also help guarantee
employees are recognized for their effort and are being
provided the right training opportunities to obtain further
skills, which can be valuable for both the employee and the
business.
On the other hand, teaching Performance EvaluationSystem
provide the management a outline to prepare and measure
the influence of their teaching practices while providing a
shared understanding of operative teaching and improve
professional practices of educators so as to absolutely
impact student learning. The quality of the teacher in the
classroom is the most essential factor in a student’s
academic achievement. Evaluation questionnaires canbe an
inventiveness resource for teachers, allowing them to
identify the capacityofstudents’understandingofthecourse
of the effectiveness of the specific approach to teaching.
Questionnaire response can be used for a wide range of
purposes including departmental evaluation, staff
confirmation and promotion processes, performance
appraisal as such, staff members must be able to modify
questionnaires to satisfy their specific requirements.
It is so common that higher educationinstitutiondepends on
both the teaching and non- teaching personnel yet major
duties comes upon the faculty. Performance evaluation in
higher education is concerned with assessing the
effectiveness of the instructors, teachingstrategies,methods
and techniques. It delivers feedback to the teachers about
their teaching and the learners about their learning. Hence,
the need for the faculty teaching evaluation necessitates
higher educational institutions to have a systematic method
to manage, evaluate and augment the faculty’s teaching
performance for the benefit of stakeholders. While it is said
that a good faculty evaluation system emboldens behavior
that will lead to the attainment of institutional goals,
provides basis for improvement, is result oriented, has
clearly stated standards, and is overtly linked to the reward
system – merit pay, re appointment, promotion and tenure
(Tong & Bures; 2014).
IJTSRD38437

International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Teaching performance evaluation of faculty members in a
higher education is a serious test for management. Several
qualitative and quantitative factors are measured leading to
targeted professional growth of an organizationtogaugethe
performance, such as acquiring research endowments,
research profile, student evaluation, publications, academic
responsibilities etc. There is a determined need to measure
and reckon activities and performanceoffacultymembersat
colleges and universities. Evaluating performance of faculty
members is one of the perilous task within an instituteandit
has become a priority worldwide for every institute (Bai,
Rajput, Hussain & Khoja; 2014).
Traditional evaluation process of students to its instructors
which is the paper and pencil has common implication
amongst the faculty that it should have a detailed
information regardingtheir classroomaccomplishments and
failures. Ever idealistic, it is also felt that end-of-course
evaluations were not sufficient and evaluationshouldwould
measure their teaching effectivenessasthecourseadvanced,
not just at the end.
The reality of the traditional evaluation makes the
researcher think that paper and pencil evaluation be altered
into a faculty online evaluation. The change in evaluation
administration from paper to online is valuable in several
respects. The cost is summarized as paper forms are no
longer necessary, and class time is no longer taken up by
classroom administration. A third, and very important,
advantage is that studentsaremorelikelytoleavecomments
for their professors because they a) are not concernedabout
their handwriting being recognized and b) are able to type
rather than write their opinions which is viewedasaneasier
response (Bullock, 2003; Dommeyeretal.,2002;Layneet al.,
2002). Finally, feedback is instantaneous and does not
require a college employee to aggregate results or type
comments to protect student obscurity. The speed of
receiving results is especially valuable if professors wish to
gauge classroom feedback mid-termratherthanatthe endof
the semester (Angelo & Cross, 1994). All of these reasons
sustenance the move from paper-based to online-based
evaluations of faculty.
On the other hand, Golden Success College Incorporated,
with its undertakings to provide quality education always
hold to the concept of teaching performance evaluation to
make sure that its academic personnel perform its duties
and responsibilities and to maximize their potential.
It is a known fact that some institutions like Golden Success
College is moving towards a modern approach such as
electronic learning, computer aided instructions,
evaluations, mobile and internet applicationandsomeother
procedures. Nonetheless, regardless of the dull process as
authors like Heneman and Milanowski, (2003) noted that it
takes time to achieve and is often the reason of the problem
with slow processes and lack of time to complete the
evaluation, given the fact that it was mainlydonepriortothe
first semester of 2019-2020, until the researcher after the
assessment of the process recommended for its
improvement, making it more manageable for the students
using web browsers. The web application is a software
application that goes on a remote server, in which in most
cases web browsers areused toaccesswebapplicationsover
a network such as internet.
Since Golden Success College has a free wifi spot, students
can freely access the online faculty evaluation in a duration
of time the college department head has given once in every
semester. They can use either a desktop which is available
for free at the school or they can use their smart phones,
whichever is suitable for them logging in tothe webbrowser
to accomplish the obligations intended for the improvement
of the school.
The researcher assessed that the proposed web application
online performance evaluation system of the faculty of the
Golden Success College will be using the famous Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) of Fred Davis (1989).
Theoretical and Conceptual Background
This study was anchored on the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUTM) 2003
which determines the user acceptance of any technology
Performance Expectancy,EffortExpectancy,Social Influence,
and Facilitating Conditions. Performance Expectancy is a
belief that the use of a particular technology will be
advantageous or performance enhancing to the individual.
Efforts Expectancy is a belief that the use of a particular
technology will be easy and effortless.Social Influencerefers
to the way in which individuals change their behavior to
meet the stresses of a social environment. Facilitating
Conditions is an organizational and technical infrastructure
supporting the use of attained systems in their contexts.
The (UTAUTM) suggested that intention to accept
technology is determined directly by attitude, perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use. According to TAM,
individual’s Intention to use technology adjusts the actual
use.
The researcher, in the course of this study, used this model
to provide solutions to questions specified in the problem
statement.

Figure 1
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of the Study
RA 7722: An act creating the Commission on Higher
Education, appropriating funds therefore and for other
purposes.
School Planning and Development: Is the statementofthe
educational philosophy of the school, its aims and how it
proposes to achieve them. It deals with the total curriculum
and with the organization of the school's resources,
including staff, space, facilities, equipment, time and finance
while School Development is a systematic approach which
involves the wholeschoolcommunityinthaton-going quest.
Many schools are already engage in such collaborative
planning because it helps them to manage change inthebest
interests of their students.
Theories: The technology acceptance model (TAM) is an
information systems theory that models how...critical ofthe
measurement model used, and postulated a different model
based on three constructs: usefulness, effectiveness, and
ease-of-use.
Web Application (Online): A web application is a
computer program that utilizes web browsers and web
technology to perform tasks over the Internet.
Performance Expectancy: Is a belief that the use of a
particular technology will be advantageous or performance
enhancing to the individual.
Efforts Expectancy: Is a belief that the use of a particular
technology will be easy and effortless.
UTAUTM
(2003)
ONLINE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR FACULTY
SCHOOL PLANNING
AND
DEVELOPMENT
WEB
APPLICATION
(ONLINE)
Effort
Expectancy
Social
Influence
Performance
Expectancy
Facilitating
Conditions
Faculty
Performance
Evaluation
LEGAL BASIS
RA 7722
CHED Memo. 25
s. 2005
CHED Memo. 74
s. 2017
THEORIES
TAM’s Construct
(1989)
Programming
Language Theory
Benjamin C. Pierce
and edited by
Yitzhak
Mandelbaum
(2009)
UTAUTM
(2003)

Social Influence: It refers to the way in which individuals
change their behavior to meet the demands of a social
environment.
Facilitating Conditions: Is an organizational and technical
infrastructure supporting the use of acquired system.
From Manual to Automation/ Web Based: Before the
integration of the new system of Teaching Performance
Evaluation System at Golden Success College, the school
utilized a paper based/ manual system in which usually
takes a week to accomplish by the students. The evaluation
would usually encounter problemsandfacultymembers will
complain about pending discussions and lessons because of
the evaluations. During a meeting of the Management
Committee (MANCOM) at the opening of the second
semester Academic Year 2019-2020 (December, 2019),
college dean and the chairperson of different departments
pointed out the need for a solution to the existing problem
mentioned by the academic heads. The researcher then,
proposed for automation which will be connected to the
existing student’s portal where information is gathered
necessary for the system.Themotionwasapproved,thusthe
new system is now in the process of creation.
THE PROBLEM
Statement of the Problem
This research assessed the Acceptability of the developed
online Performance Evaluation System for the Faculty
Towards Technology Adoption of Golden Success College
during the Academic Year 2019-2020.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What related information can be derived as to:
1.1. Profile of the users
1.1.1. age; gender;
1.1.2. highest educational attainment;
1.1.3. length of service;
1.1.4. ICT background,
1.2. technology resources available, and
1.3. prior evaluation system utilized?
2. As to how is the online teaching performanceevaluation
system developed in terms of;
2.1. inputs;
2.2. process, and;
2.3. output?
3. As perceived by the users, what is the level of
acceptability of this developed system as to;
3.1. performance expectancy;
3.2. effort expectancy;
3.3. social influence; and
3.4. facilitating conditions?
3.5. Based on findings, what technology adoption can be
developed?
Null Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between the previous
and the developed onlineperformanceevaluationsystem for
faculty.
Significance of the Study
This study will be of used and beneficial to the following
group of people and
Individuals.
School Administrators: Shall findthisstudyveryuseful and
vital since it will guide them in the automation of other
systems in the school. With this automation, the school
administration will be guided by the easilyaccessiblefaculty
evaluation data as a basis for improvements, promotion and
salary increase.
Dean; This will provide them with accurate performance
data for the past years they been leading the department.
This could also be the basis for self-improvement program.
Students: This will help themevaluatetheirinstructors with
a minimal time, without being hesitant and petrifiedthatthe
instructors will recognize them with their handwriting.
Future Researchers: They will be stimulated to make
attempts to expand and replicate this study.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Design
This study made used of the descriptive-normative method
of research and adapted questionnaire from Cheng (2014),
Gao (2011), and Ku (2009) to gather data from the
respondents.
The information of the previous and the innovated online
performance evaluation system was developed with the
following features, functions and user’s satisfaction. The
perceptions of the users on the Online Performance
Evaluation System for the Faculty of the CollegeDepartment
in terms of performance Expectancy, effort Expectancy,
social influence and facilitating Conditions will be adopted
during the implementation of the study. The significant
relationship between the previous and the innovated online
performance evaluation system rated by the users and the
output will also be developed.
Flow of the Study
The flow of the study is illustrated in Figure 2. The input of
the study includes company data and respondent’s data
specifically, the information on features and functions ofthe
on line faculty performance evaluation system, their
perception using
The process will be consisted of Transmittal Letter, data
gathering, analysis, design, development and
implementation. The output will focus on the improved
model using a web applicationofonlinefacultyperformance
evaluation system.
Environment
This study was conducted at Golden Success College Cebu
Campus, located at V. Rama Avenue, Guadalupe, Cebu City
started its operation during

Figure 2 the Flow of the Study
Figure 3 the Environment of the Study
1. Related information that
can be derived as to:
1.1. Profile of the users
1.2. technology resources
available, and
1.3. ICT background
2. How is the online
performance evaluation
developed in terms of:
2.1. Input
2.2. Process
2.3. output
3. Perception of the users on
level of acceptability of the
developed system as to:
3.1. performance expectancy
3.2. effort
3.3. social influence
3.4. facilitating conditions
4. Based on findings what
technology adoption can
be used?
Transmittal Letter
Data Gathering
Analysis
Design
Development
Implementation
Technology Adoption
of Online Performance
Evaluation System for
Faculty

school year 2007 – 2008 catering to pre – elementary and elementary children and the latter started its operation school year
2016-2017. It is owned and managed by a family corporation. Both a private school which has the mission of makingavailable
to the public high quality and internationally competitive education in various field of sciences, values, formation and trade
skills for the effective development of future leaders, values , formation and trade skills for the effectivedevelopmentoffuture
leaders, entrepreneurs and workforce in the country. It is a premierlearninginstitutioninthecountrydedicatedtoholisticand
world class standard of education.
It offers Pre- School, Primary Education, Junior and Senior High School and Higher Education(College). The school offers full
scholarship grant, subsidized by the city government to college students. Most of the faculty members of the school are
graduates of GSC in which the school take its pride of having them extensively trained on their respective education courses
and passing the licensure examination for teachers during their first attempt of passing the said examination. Figure 3 shows
the location of the environment of the study.
Respondents
The study involved all the administrators, faculty and identified students of Golden Success College – Cebu, Ilo-ilo and Manila
branch, which consist of 8 administrators, 4 Department Chair and 30 faculty members. It utilized 25% of 550 total numberof
students enrolled under Bachelor in Elementary Education, Bachelor in Secondary Education, Bachelor in Information
Technology, Bachelor inHotel andRestaurantManagement,asthedeterminedrepresentativethroughrandomsampling.These
data were taken from the college data base of enrolled students from the year 2016 up to the second semester of the academic
year 2019 -2020.
Table 1 Distribution of Respondents
N = 192
Category
Sample Population Percentage
(N) (%)
Administrators 8 4.16
Department Chair 4 2.08
Faculty 42 21.87
Students 138 71.87
TOTAL 192 100%
Instrument
The main instrument that is being used in this study was adapted from Cheng (2014), Gao (2011) Ku (2009). The items
reflected in the said instrument were modified according to the existing faculty performance evaluation of theinstitution. The
adapted questionnaire was used because it required less time to administer,lessopportunityof biassincequestionnaireswere
presented consistently, and responses to each item were easier to compare because most of the items in thequestionnaireare
close.
Data Gathering
The timeline of the data gathering procedure were divided into three (3) phases. Each phase was planned and executed
carefully to get reliable and ample data.
Treatment of Data
The data that was gathered from the survey were analyzed, processed, and interpreted. Thefirstpartdescribedtheprofileand
information of the previous and the new on line teaching performance evaluation system used by Golden Success College, its
features, functions and user satisfaction.
It determined and analyzed the problemofthecurrentteachingperformanceevaluationregardingthe respondent’s perception
on ease of use, usefulness and behavioral intention for use.
After evaluating and analyzing the data that were gathered, responses to questionnaire were tallied, collated, tabulated and
interpreted. Answers to question and checklist were treated by the use of the following statistical tools:
Frequency, Percentage and Rank are used to describe the profile of the respondents. It was also used to determine the level
of acceptability of the developed system and the online performance evaluation system of the facility developed,
Scoring Procedure
The responses of the respondents on the profile of the previous and new online teaching performance evaluation system, its
features and functions, and on the level of satisfaction will be ratedaccordinglybasedonthedifferentcriteria.The responsesof
the respondents on the perception using TAM of the present system was scored based on the following.
On the online performance evaluation system facility, the following scoring scheme were used:

Input, Process and Output
Weight Categorical Responses Verbal Interpretation
3 Highly Acceptable (HA)
The existing teaching performance evaluation have good have good features and
functions that is 100% satisfactory and is very capable of handling the required
activity
2 Acceptable (A)
The existing teaching performance evaluation has features that are 75 to 99.9%
satisfactory and is capable of handling the required activities.
1 Not Acceptable (NA)
The existing teaching performance evaluation system has some features that are
inconvenient and is considered incapable of handling the required activities.
On the perceived usefulness of the current faculty performance evaluation system, the following scoring scheme were used:
Perceived Usefulness (Performance Expectancy)
The existing teaching performance evaluation have good features that are
100% satisfactory and causes the system perform a specific task.
3 Acceptable (A)
The existing teaching performance evaluation has features that are 75%
to 99% satisfactory and causes the system perform a specific task.
The existing online performance evaluation has some features that are
inconvenient and causes the system perform the task inaccurately
On the perceived ease of use of the current of the current faculty performance evaluation, the following scoring scheme were
used.
Perceived Ease of Use (Efforts Expectancy)
The existing teaching performance evaluation has good features that is 100%
satisfactory. Which causes it to perform specific task which is very easy and
convenient to use?
3 Acceptable (A)
The existing teaching performance evaluation has good features that are 75% to
99.9 satisfactory. Which causes it to perform specific task which is very easy and
convenient to use.
The existing teaching performance evaluation has good features that inconvenient
which cause it to perform specific task inaccurately and not easy to use.
On the behavioral Intention to Use the current Faculty Performance Evaluation, the following scoring were used.
Behavioral Intention to Use (Efforts Expectancy)
100% of the existing teaching performance evaluation is acceptable and
satisfactory
3 Acceptable (A)
75% to 99.9% of the existing teaching performance evaluation is
acceptable and satisfactory
1 Not Acceptable (NA) the existing system is not acceptable
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following terms are operationally defined to give a clearer understanding of this study and put the readers to same
viewpoint of the researcher.
Behavioral Intention to Use: This refers to the degree to which a person has formulated conscious plans to performornotto
perform some specified future and there might appear a lot of factors possibly influencing learners.
Faculty Performance Evaluation: This refers to the formal process a school uses to review and rate teachers’ performance
and effectiveness in the classroom. Ideally, the findings from these evaluations are used to provide feedback to teachers and
guide their professional development.
Features of the System: This refers to the distinctive characteristics of a good performance evaluation.
Function of the Systems: This refers to the action that the facultyperformanceevaluationsystemmayperform.Theadequacy
of the system to satisfy the needs, requirements and standards of a performance evaluation system.
Online Teaching Evaluation System: It refers to the web basedsystemused bystudentsto evaluatetheirrespectiveteachers.
Perceived Ease of Use: This refers to the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be freefrom
effort.

Perceived Usefulness: This refers to the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his
or her job performance.
Web Application: This refers to a computer program that utilizeswebbrowsersand webtechnologytoperformtasksoverthe
Internet.
Teaching Performance Evaluation: This refers to the formal process a school uses to review and
rate teachers' performance and effectiveness in the classroom. Ideally, the findings fromthese evaluationsareused toprovide
feedback to teachers and guide their professional development.
Technology Adoption: This refers to the acceptance, integration, and use of new technology in society. The process follows
several stages, usually categorized by the groups of people who use that technology.
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter deals with the related literature and studies that is deemed relevant tothisresearch.Thematerialsobtainedfrom
the periodicals, journals and books that give support to the study. The review is also one way of finding out whether thisstudy
is duplication of any previous study conducted.
Related Literature
This chapter signifies various literature and studies closely related to the study. The literature mentions performance
evaluation/ performance appraisal as a commonly used term in human resource management. The review of related studies
exhibits some findings in performance appraisal systems/ evaluationofindividual orteamtask performance.Acritical pointin
the definition is the word formal because, in actuality managers should be reviewing an individual’s performance on a
continuing basis. Performance appraisal is especially critical to the success of performance management, Cokin(2004),states
that a performance evaluation system is important for organizations, as it focuses on employees to develop their capabilities.
Moreover, it does not only do capacity building but it also helps in timely predictions and taking actions promptlytouncertain
changes. This evaluation of performance has become a term used for a varietyofactivitiesthrough whichorganizationsseek to
assess employees and develop their competence, improve performance and allocate rewards (Fistcher, 2001). Grote (2002)
identified the following purposes of performance evaluation 1. Providing feedback to employees about their performance, 2.
Facilitating decisions concerning pay increase, promotions, layoffs; 3. Encouraging performance improvement. 4. Setting and
measuring goals, 5. Determining individual and organizational training anddevelopmentneeds,6.Confirmingthatgoodhiring
decisions are being made, 7. Provide legal support for personal decisions, 8. Improving overall organizational performance.
A division of performance management is performance appraisal; it is a continuous process through which performance of
employees is identified, measured and improved in the organization.Thisprocessincludesvariouspracticeslikerecognitionof
employee’s achievement, providing them regular feedback and offering career development (Aguinis, 2007;Lansbury,1988).
Wilson (2005) supported the idea and explored that performance managementisneithera techniquenora singlestepprocess,
it can be considered as a set of process that includes knowledge of the employees about what their managers expect of them,
their motivation to perform well, monitoring and evaluation of their performance aimed at identifying areas where the
improvements are needed (Rasheed, et al., 2011).
Since an important goal for organization is the improvement of employee job performance, it is accepted that performance
evaluation is a necessary part of a successful performance improvement method (Creamer and Winston, 1999; Landy & Farr,
1983; Shah and Murphy, 1995). It allows organizations to inform their employees about their rates of growth, their
competencies and their potentials. It enables employees to be intentional in creating their individual developmental goals to
help in their growth. There is little disagreement that if an evaluation is done well, it serves a very useful in reconciling the
needs of the individual and the needs of the organization (Cleveland et.al,1983); It can be deduced that if used well,
performance evaluation is an influential tool thatanorganizationhavetoorganizeand coordinatethepowerofeveryemployee
of the organization towards the achievement of itsstrategicgoals(Grote,2002;Lewis,1996).Itcanfocuseachemployee’smind
on the organization’s mission, vision and core values. However, if performance appraisal is not done well, Grote suggests the
process can become the object of jokes and the target of ridicule.
Also, Rao in his book Performance Appraisal Theory and Practice, categorized the performance evaluation process into six
steps. The first step is the establishment of performancestandards;developinganappraisal planconstitutesa vital phaseinthe
PA process. During this phase, performance prerequisites are pointed out, and organizationgoalsanddirectionare stated.The
second step involves the communication of the specified performance standardstoemployeeswiththeaimoffinetuningthem
where the need arises. The third step consists of the determinationofappropriateappraisal methods.Nextaretheexamination
and evaluation of the employee’s performance. This is followed by the discussion of approval outcomes with the employee to
facilitate an understanding of the level of satisfaction with the individuals measured alongside expected standards. The sixth
step is the post appraisal action. As earlier observed, the two major occupations of performance appraisals broadly grouped
into evaluative and developmental purposes.
Related Studies
In today’s competitive human resource, where it demands ever increasing productivity, efficiency, and quality of the human
capital, while higher educational institutions have tended to be quick to look to automation toimprovetheeducational system

and other processes, they’ve not always thought of the importance of automation to improve every aspect of the academic
world including performance appraisal. HR processes area that has been shown to benefit from the use of automated tools is
talent management, which encompassesrecruiting, employeeperformancemanagement,learningmanagement,compensation
and succession planning. Employee performance management includes performance reviews, goal setting and alignment
competency/ job skills management and employee development planning (Guay, 2011).
Guay, (2011) mentioned that software which automates performance management process cycle by making it more efficient;
improve the workflow between supervisors, employees and HR, again increasing efficiency;increasemanagerand employee’s
participation, and ‘on time’ competition rates; and, make it easier to demonstrate compliance with accrediting organizations.
While research and experienced practitioners have identified several characteristics that are prerequisites for effective
performance evaluation systems, there are also many decisions that need to be made to design a system ideally suited for a
given organization’s needs. One such decision is what purpose(s) the system will serve. For instance, performance evaluation
systems can support pay decisions, promotion decisions, employee development and reductions in force. A performance
evaluation system that attempts to achieve too many objectives is likely to die of its lack of focus and weight. There is no one
type of system or set of objectives best suited for all organizations. The purpose of a given performance evaluation system
should be determined by considering business needs, organizational culture and the system’s integration with other human
resource management system (Pulakos, 2004)
The twenty first century organizations and their leaders must understand and realize that their most important asset in
achieving long term success is not necessarily their technologies, but the competitive edge and the key to success lies in their
people (Mujtaba, 2008). This is why continuous performance assessment, coaching and developing of each employee in the
organization is critical in today’s competitive workplace. Performance assessment and developing people are important
elements of a holistic paradigm for the growth and development of organization through effective performance management
systems.
Professor Hernan Aguinis defined performance management as the continuous process of identifying, measuring and
developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organizations
(Aguinis, 2007). This definition emphasizes that an effectiveperformancemanagementprogramrequirescontinuousfeedback
and improvement processes for the development of the people. Aguinis stated that “a system that involves employee
evaluations once a year without an on- going effort to providefeedback andcoachingsothatperformancethatcan beimproved
is not a true performance managementsystem”Aguinis,2007).Furthermore,accordingtoAguinis,a performancemanagement
that does not explicitly makes clear the employee’s contribution to the goals of the organization is not a true performance
management system.
Taking feedback of teachers from students in schools or colleges is an important activity of any educational institute.
Traditionally teachers’ feedback evaluationsystemisa questionnairebasedsystem wherea pre-designedquestionnaireformis
given to each student. The form may have 10 or more questions and students assign a grade to each questionforeveryteacher
according to the predefined measuring scale. On the basis of responses of all students, it is determined how much a teacher is
able to contribute in his/her course. The main problem ofquestionnairebasedsystemisthathigherauthoritiesidentifythekey
points of a teacher and form question set on the basis of their personal experiences withouttakingintoaccountstudents’view.
Due to this, traditional questionnaire based system becomes very restricted as students can give their views for only those
questions which are mentioned in the questionnaire.
A teacher despite having a good command over the subject may have some vital social merits/demerits which may affect the
thinking of students either in a positive way or in a negative way. Every teacher has its own way of delivering lectures and
students can easily identify the qualities/features of any teacher. For instance, the way a teacher introduces a new topic,
his/her gesture in the class, writing skills, the method of answering questions, the knowledge of subject, etc may be more
important to a student than the actual contents covered by the teachertocompletethe course.Therefore,insteadof takingpre-
defined aspects, it will be more meaningful to extract the relevantfeaturesofa teacherfromstudents’feedback (Kumar,A.et.al
2017).
Bhatnagar and Saxena (2018) mentioned in their study that in order to increase the effectiveness of delivery of quality
education, it is important to evaluate the performance of two major stack-holders namelystudentsandfaculty.Presently,Data
Mining has emerged an important area of research in Higher and Technical Education. Data mining techniques are applied in
higher education to address and give an insightto educational andadministrativeproblemsinHEIs.However,a largeportionof
the instructive mining research concentrates on modelling and predicting student's performance and a very few research
models are available on faculty performance. While evaluating faculty performance, majority of the research used
questionnaire as an important tool for collecting feedback from the students (Bhatnagar and Sasena, 2018).
Evaluation systems are a feature of the educational landscape in many countries, includingtheUnitedStatesofAmerica (USA),
England, Australia, WalesandthePhilippines.Throughanevaluationsystem,Higher ManagementorSchool Administratorscan
determine whether teachers are performing according to the required standards. The assumption is that holding and the
teachers who work in them accountable will use them to achieve higher levels of performance thereby ensuring quality
education (Naidu et al.,2008). In most systems, the measurement of performance is occupied with rewards and sanctions

(Elmore & Fuhman, 2001). In the USA, England, Australia and Wales, evaluations systems are linked to the academic
performance of learners based on National students testing (Linn, 2003; Ladd, 2001 Fitz, 2003).Forschoolstomeetthepublic
and the governmental demands about the academic performance of learners as well as to avoid sanctions, teachers
performance should becontinuallyimprovedthroughthe actionsofperformancemanagement.Performancemanagementisan
aspect of evaluation systems whereby teachers within the school are assisted by their supervisors to attain their standards
expected of them (Mosoge & Pilane, 2014).
Choosing appropriate parameters to accomplish this task is still a big challenge.Todefineappropriateperformanceindicators,
a variety of techniques have been proposed by the academic institutions. However, the existing metrics areinadequateanddo
not capture the full range of activities that support and transmit scientific ideas. Therefore, it is very essential to present an
approach that clearly defines the goals and objectives of the university, expected performance output from faculty and drive
decisions automatically (Bai, Hussain and Rajput, 2014).
On Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), there are many technological perspectives that have been developed to understand
how end users make decisions to use technology applications. Theories provide tools to understand success or failure in
implementation processes of new IT applications. The most dominant theories in IT research are InnovationDiffusionTheory
(IDT) (Rogers, 1995), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Fishbein and Ajzen,1975),theUnifiedTheoryofAcceptanceandUse
of Technology (UTAUT) (venkatesh et al, 2003; 2012); the FITT framework (Ammenwerth et al., 2002) and the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989).
As mentioned by Abu-Dalbouh (2013), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989) is possibly the
most frequently used among all other theories (Ma and Liu, 2004); Kim and Chang, 2007; Yarbrough and Smith, 2007). TAM
theory is based on principles adapted from FishbeinandAzjen(1975),attitude paradigmfrompsychology, whichspecifieshow
to measure the behavior – relevant components of attitudes, distinguishes between beliefs and attitudes and specifies how
external stimuli are casually linked to belief, attitudes and behavior. The theoretical model on which TAMisbaseistheTheory
of Reasoned Action (TRA). TRA is general model which is concerned with individual’s intended behavior. According toTRAan
individual’s performance is determined by the individual’s attitude and subjective normsconcerningthe behaviorinquestion.
Also, an individual’s beliefs and motivation interact with existing behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980).
Several attitudes have examined TAM is the model to explain how people adopt and use technology. Selim (2003) stated that
there was a need to investigate TAM with web-based learning. He put forward the Course Website AcceptanceModel (CWAM)
and tested the relationship among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and intention to use among the university
students using the structural equation model technique of the LISREL program. He concluded that the model fits the collected
data and the usefulness and the ease of use turned out to be good determinants of of acceptance and use of a coursewebsiteas
an effective and efficient learning technology (Park, 2009). The same thing of what we are going to do with GSC faculty’s
teaching performance evaluation on which the focus will be on the perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and the
respondent’s behavioral intention to use.
TAM theory is widely used in research contents as well as with several types of technology applications (Chau and Hu, 2001;
Lee et al., 2006; Raitoharju, 2007; Yarbrough and Smith, 2007). TAM uses for generating explanations for the factors of
technology acceptance to different user populations and different kind of technologies. Many different context and research
constructions have confirmed the validity of TAM model (Ma and Liu, 2004; King and He, 2006), including in healthcare and
mobile industry (Abu-Dalbouh, 2013).
For this study, the TAM theory was used to structure the research process and to help enhance the understanding of the
acceptance and use of web base technology in the management process of the academe.
3. PRESENTATION, DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter tackles the result and discussions of the study. There was a total of 192 respondents from the Golden Success
College Incorporated. These respondents were divided into four groups, which were the following: school admin,department
chairs, faculty and random students (see Table 1). These respondents were asked to answer an adapted questionnaire which
was modified according to the purpose of the study on technology adoption of online teaching performance evaluationsystem
of faculty.
RELATED INFORMATION USERS PROFILE
The related information from the respondents were school administrators, College Department chairs, Collegefacultyandthe
selected students from Golden Success College. The data was interpreted in terms of age and gender, Highest educational
attainment, length of service of the faculty, administrators and department chairman, ICT background, technology resources
availability and the Prior Evaluation System Utilized. The respondents focus on the Teachers’ Evaluation System using the
computerized teacher’s performance system Golden Success College.

Table 2 Age and Gender
N=192
Age Bracket
Respondent-groups
X %
A B C D
Administrators College Chairman Faculty Students
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
25 years old & Below 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 65 123 64.06
26 to 30 years old 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 15 7.81
31 to 35 years old 0 0 0 0 20 22 0 0 42 21.87
36 to 40 years old 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 2.08
41 years old and Above 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4.16
Total: 8 4 42 138 192 99.9
Legend:
M - Males A - Administrators
F - Females B - College Chairman
X - Sum C - Faculty
% - Percentage D - Students
Table 2 presents the Age and Gender of the respondent-groups of Golden Success College. It shows that the Age and gender of
the respondents was answered. There were 4 males and 4 females from administrators answeredthequestionsintermsofage
and gender;
2 males and 2 females from College Department chairman answered the questionsintermsofageandgender;20malesand22
females from Faculty answered the questions in terms of age and gender; and 58 males and 65 females and 10 males and 5
females from students with age bracket of “25 years old & Below “ and “26 to 30 years old” answered the questions in termsof
age and gender.
Based on the table, there were 123 or 64.06% of the respondents responded in terms of age bracket of 25 years old and below
of the students;15 or 7.81% of the respondents responded in terms of Age bracket of 26 to 30 years old of the students; 42 or
21.87% of the respondents responded in terms of Age bracket of 31 to 35 years old of the faculty; 4 or 2.08% of the
respondents responded in terms of Age bracket of 31 to 35 years old of the Department College Chairman; and 8 or 4.16% of
the respondents responded in terms of Age bracket of 31 to 35 years old of the School Administrators.
The implications of the table presented above was there werestudentsansweredthequestionsonageandgendercomparedto
Faculty, Chairmen and the School Administrators.
Table 3 Highest Educational Attainment
N=54
Respondents
Education Attainment
X %
1 2 3
Doctor’s Degree Master’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Faculty 0 0 0 5 10 5 5 10 7 42 77.77
College Chairman 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 7.41
Administrators 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 8 14.81
Total: 3 28 23 54 99.9
Legend:
1 - Manila Campus
2 - Cebu Campus
3 - Ilo-Ilo Campus
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 3 presents the Highest Educational Attainment of the Administrators, College Chair and faculty of Golden Success
College. It shows that there were three (3) education attainment acquired from the respondents. There were3administrators
graduated from Doctor’s Degree programs; 20 from Faculty, 3 from College Chairman and 5 from administrators who
graduated in Master’s Degree Programs; and 22 from faculty and 1 from College Chairman who graduated from Bachelor’s
Degree Programs.
Therefore, the effect were 28 respondents graduated from masters degree, 23 respondents graduated fromBachelors’degree
and 3 respondents from Doctor’s Degree programs answered in terms of Highest Educational Attainment.

Table 4 Length of Service
N=54
Length of Service
Respondents
x %
1 2 3
Administrators College Chairman Faculty
15 years and above 4 0 8 12 22.22
10-14 years 2 2 12 16 29.62
5 – 9 years 0 2 10 12 22.22
4 years and below 2 0 12 14 25.92
Total: 8 4 42 54 99.9
Legend:
1 - Administrators
2 - College Chairman
3 - Faculty
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 4 presents the respondents Length of Service in the Golden Success College. It is shows that there were 12 or 22.22% of
the respondents with the length of service from” 15 years and above”; 16 or 29.62 % of the respondents with the length of
service from” 10-14 years”; 12 or 22.22% of the respondents with the length of service from” 5 – 9 years”;and14or 25.92%of
the respondents with the length of service from” 4 years and below”.
The effect of the table presented above was 4 administrators serve longer to Golden Success College compared to College
Chairman and the Faculty.
Table 5 Information Computer Technology Background
Information Technology Background
Respondents
X %
1 2 3
Administrators College Chairman Faculty
Web Page Designing 1 0 20 21 38.88
Programming 1 0 12 13 24.07
Computer Hardware Trouble Shooting 6 4 10 20 37.03
Total: 8 4 42 54 99.9
Legend:
1 - Administrators
2 - College Chairman
3 - Faculty
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 5 presents the background of the respondents in terms of Information Computer Technology Background of Golden
Success College. Based on the data, there were only 3 ICT background acquired by the respondent-groups. There were 21 or
38.88% of the respondents acquired “Web Page Designing” seminars attended; 13 or 24.07% of the respondents acquired
“Programming” seminars attended.
Table 6 Technology Resources Availability
Resources
Campuses
X %
1 2 3
Manila Campus Cebu Campus Ilo-Ilo Campus
Desk Top Computers 25 25 25 75 71.42
Lap Top Computers 10 10 10 30 28.57
Total: 35 35 35 105 99.9
Legend:
1 - Manila Campus
2 - Cebu Campus
3 - Ilo-Ilo Campus
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 6 presents the availability of resources. It is shows that the schools have the same distribution of unitsofcomputersand
lap tops in every campus. Based on the data, there were only 75 or 71.42% of “Disc Top Computers” distributed in every
campus and 30 or 28.57 “Lap Top Computers also distributed in every campuses.

Therefore, the effect of the table presented above was both computers either this is desk top or lap top is very useful as a part
of the daily work assessment and preparation of school activities and reporting.
Table 7 Prior Evaluation System Utilized
Utilized Evaluation
System
Respondents
X %
1 2 3
Computerized 25 35 20 80 76.19
Manual 5 10 20 35 33.33
Total: 35 35 35 105 99.9
Legend:
1 - Manila Campus
2 - Cebu Campus
3 - Ilo-Ilo Campus
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 7 presents the prior evaluation utilized by the schools. It shows that there were 25 respondents answeredthequestions
on the Manual Utilization “Prior Evaluation System” from Manila Campus; 35 respondents answer the questions on the “Prior
Evaluation System” from Manila Campus; 20 respondents answer the questions on the “ Prior Evaluation System” from Ilo-ilo
Campus;
There were also 5 respondents answered the questions on the Computerized Utilization “Prior Evaluation System”fromCebu
Campus; 10 respondents answer the questions on the “Prior Evaluation System” from Manila Campus; 20 respondents
answered the questions on the “Prior Evaluation System” from Iloilo Campus.
Therefore, the effect was there were evaluators from the Golden Success College rated the utilization of the teachers’
performance system using the previous manual rating and the computerized utilization system.Thetablewaspresented80or
76.19% of the respondents answered the computerized Utilization System vs. 35 or 33.33% of the respondents answered the
conventional/manual rating System for evaluating the teachers’ Performance system.
ON-LINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM FACILITY DEVELOPED
In the traditional/ paper base performance system, the contents reflected were competency, professionalism, effectiveness,
character/ discipline upon which it was used for the online evaluation development system. The data gatheredasto theinput,
process and output of the reflected content on the developed system are presented in the tables below.
Table 8 On-line Performance Evaluation System Facility
Evaluation System Facility
Indicators
X %
1 2 3
Input 2 50 10 62 32.29
Process 7 45 12 64 33.33
Output 1 60 5 66 34.37
Total: 10 155 17 192 99.9
Interpretation: ACCEPTABLE
Legend:
1 - Highly Acceptable
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 8 presents the Online Performance Evaluation System Facility Developed. It shows that there were 3 EvaluationSystem
Facility used in this study namely: the Input, Process and Output. Basedonthedata presentedabove,there were2respondents
answered in terms of Highly Acceptable; 50 respondents answered in terms of Acceptable and 10 respondents answered in
terms of Not Acceptable for the “INPUT”;
Also there were 7 respondents answered in terms of Highly Acceptable; 45 respondents answered in terms of Acceptable and
12 respondents answered in terms of Not Acceptable “PROCESS”; and there were 1 respondents answered in terms of Highly
Acceptable; 60 respondents answered in terms of Acceptable and 5 respondents answered in terms of Not Acceptable
“OUTPUT”. Therefore, based on the data, 62 or 32.29% respondents responded in terms of “On-line Performance Evaluation
System Facility Developed”; 64 or 33.33% respondents respondedintermsof“On-linePerformanceEvaluationSystemFacility
Developed”; and 66 or 34.37%respondentsrespondedin termsof “On-linePerformanceEvaluationSystemFacilityDeveloped”
in Golden Success College.

So the implication of the table means “ACCEPTABLE” by adopting and implementing the On-line Performance Evaluation
System Facility Developed in the three campuses in Golden Success College.
LEVEL OF ACCEPTABILITY OF THIS DEVELOPED SYSTEM
Table 9 Performance Expectancy
Acceptability of developed system
Indicators
x %
1 2 3
I can easily access the system using laptop, desktop or mobile phones. 3 27 5 35 18.22
I can complete the evaluation quickly using the system. 0 35 3 38 19.79
I trust the security features of the system. 4 30 5 39 20.31
The system provide user authentication. 5 30 5 40 20.83
The user provides completeness of data. 0 40 0 40 20.83
Total: 12 162 18 192 99.9
Interpretation: ACCEPTABLE
Legend:
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 9 presents the Performance Expectancy in the acceptability of the developed systeminGoldenSuccessCollege.Basedon
the data, there were 5 attributes in the acceptability of developed system namely: 3 for Highly Acceptable; 27 for Acceptable
and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I can easily access the system using laptop, desktop or mobile phones; none for Highly
Acceptable; 35 for Acceptable and 3 for Not Acceptable in terms of I can completethe evaluationquicklyusingthesystem;4for
Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of I trust the security features of the system; 5 for
Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “The system provide user authentication”; andOnly
40 from the respondents answered ACCEPTABLE in terms of “The user provides completenessofdata”.Theimplicationswere
“ACCEPTABLE” in terms of level of acceptability of this developed system.
Table 10 Effort Expectancy
Indicators
x %
1 2 3
I am satisfied with how easy to use the system. 3 27 5 35 18.22
I feel really confident in using the on line teaching performance evaluation system. 1 32 5 38 19.79
I can accomplish the evaluation quickly using the system 4 30 5 39 20.31
I am satisfied of how the system functions 5 30 5 40 20.83
I can access the evaluation on line at any time; thus, provides convenience for me 3 35 2 40 20.83
Total: 12 162 18 192 99.9
Legend:
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentag
Table 10 presents the Efforts Expectancy in the acceptability of the developed system in the Golden Success College. Based on
the data, there were 5 attributes in the acceptability of developed system namely: 3 for Highly Acceptable; 27 for Acceptable
and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I am satisfied with how easy to use the system; 1 for Highly Acceptable;32for Acceptable
and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I feel really confident in using the on line teaching performance evaluation system; 4 for
Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I can accomplish the evaluation quickly using the
system”; 5 for Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I am satisfied of how the system
functions”; and Only 3 for Highly Acceptable , 35 for Acceptable and 2 Not Acceptable from the respondents in terms of “I can
access the evaluation on line at any time; thus, provides convenience for me”. The implication is “acceptable” in terms of the
developed system.
Table 11 Social Influence
Indicators
x %
1 2 3
I am satisfied with how easy to use the system. 0 45 3 48 19.79
I feel really confident in using the online teaching performance evaluation. 4 40 5 49 20.31
I can accomplish the evaluation quickly using the system. 5 40 3 48 20.83
I am satisfied of how the system functions. 2 40 6 48 20.83
Total: 11 165 17 192 99.9

Legend:
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 11 presents the Social Influence to the respondents in Golden Success College in terms of the developed system. It is
shows that there were 4 attributes to consider the acceptabilityofthedevelopedsystem.45respondentsrespondedintermsof
acceptability and 4 respondents answered in terms of not acceptable for ” I am satisfied with how easy to use the system”; 4
respondents responded in terms of highly acceptable, 40foracceptableand4respondentsansweredintermsof notacceptable
for “I feel really confident in using the online teaching performance evaluation”;5 respondents responded in terms of highly
acceptability, 40 for acceptable and 3 respondents answered in terms of not acceptable for” I can accomplish the evaluation
quickly using the system”;2 respondents responded in terms of highly acceptability, 40 for acceptable and 6 respondents
answered in terms of not acceptable for” I am satisfied of how the system functions”. The implications were “ACCEPTABLE”in
terms of level of acceptability of this developed system.
Table 12 Facilitating Conditions
Indicators
x %
1 2 3
I intent to use the system in the future. 3 27 5 35 18.22
I expect my use of the system in the future. 0 35 3 38 19.79
It is worth it to use the evaluation system 4 30 5 39 20.31
Given that I have access to the system at anywhere. I plan to use it. 5 30 5 40 20.83
I predict I would use the system in the next Academic Year. 0 40 0 40 20.83
Total: 12 162 18 192 99.9
Legend:
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 12 presents the Facilitating Conditions in the acceptability of the developed system in the GoldenSuccessCollege.Based
on the data, there were 5 attributes in the acceptability of developed systemnamely:3forHighlyAcceptable;27forAcceptable
and 5 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I intent to use the system in the future; none for Highly Acceptable;35forAcceptableand
3 for Not Acceptable in terms of “I expect my use of the system in the future; 4 for Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and 5
for Not Acceptable in terms of “It is worth it to use the evaluation system”; 5 for Highly Acceptable; 30 for Acceptable and5for
Not Acceptable in terms of “Given that I have access to the system at anywhere. I plan to use it”; and Only 40 from the
respondents answered ACCEPTABLE in terms of “I predict I would use the system in the next Academic Year”.
The implications were “ACCEPTABLE” in terms of level of acceptability of this developed system.
Table 13 Summary of the Level of Acceptability of the Developed System
Level of Acceptability
Indicators
x %
1 2 3
Performance Expectancy 12 162 18 192 100
Effort Expectancy 12 162 18 192 100
Social Influence 11 164 17 192 100
Facilitating Conditions 12 162 18 192 100
Legend:
2 - Acceptable
3 - Not Acceptable
X - Sum
% - Percentage
Table 13 reveals the summary of the level of acceptability of the developed system, where it shows that under performance
expectancy, there were 12 answered that the developed system is highly acceptable, 162 for acceptable and only 3 answered
for not acceptable. For the level of acceptability on Effort Expectancy, it showed that there 12 among respondents who
answered that it is highly acceptable, 162 for acceptable, and 18 for not acceptable. Moreover, for the Social Influence, there
were 11 respondents who answered that the developed system is highly acceptable, 164 for acceptable and 17 for not
acceptable. Under Facilitating Conditions, a total of 12 respondents answered that the developed system is highly acceptable,

162 for highly acceptable and 18 for not acceptable. The implication of the summary reveals that majority of the respondents
found the developed system as “acceptable” in terms of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and
facilitating conditions.
This chapter has been presented, analyzed and interpreted the data for this study.
4. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
This study aimed to assess an Online Performance Evaluation System for the Faculty Towards TechnologyAdoptionofGolden
Success College.
Specifically, this sought to answer the following questions: What related information can be derived as to: (1.1) Profile of the
users – (1.1.1) age; gender: (1.1.2) highest educational attainment; (1.1.3) length of service; (1.1.4) ICT background (1.2)
technology resources available, and; (1.3) prior evaluation system utilized.
It also sought answers with the question, how is the online teaching performance evaluation systemdevelopedintermsof;(1)
inputs, (2) process, and, (3) output.
Further, it sought answers with the questions, how is the online teaching performance developed in terms of; (1) inputs, (2)
process and (3) outputs. Some other questions that sought answers are, what is the level of acceptability of the developed
system as to (1) performance expectancy, (2) social influence and (3) facilitating conditions, and so with the question what
technology adoption can be developed.
This study utilized the descriptive-normative methodofresearch,andadapteda questionnairefromCheng(2014),Gao(2011),
and Ku (2011), as the main instrument in gathering data from the respondents.
The respondents of this study were the administrators (8), department chairs (4) and random college students (138). In
particular, school administrators is consist of the college dean, college coordinators, two (2) basic education principals,
Senior/junior high and the elementary principal, finance officer, registrar, SAO chair, and HRMO.
After determining its functionality, the researcher personally administered the questionnaires to the administrators, faculty,
and students. The gathered data were encoded in the Microsoft excel and were analyzed. Descriptivesummarymeasuressuch
as the frequency, percentage and weighted mean were generated.
FINDINGS
The following were the findings of the study:
Related Information Users Profile: It is revealed that123or64.06%oftherespondentsresponded withtheagebracketof25
years and below, and 15 or 7.81% responded with the age bracket of 25 years to 30, are from the students. There were 42 or
21.8% in the age bracket of 31 to 35 from the faculty, 4 or 2.08% in the age bracket of 31 to 35 from thedepartment chairs,and
8 or 4.16% of the respondents responded in the ager bracket of 31-35 years from the school administrators. The implication
was there were school administrators, college department chairsandstudentswhoansweredthequestionsonageandgender.
As for the educational attainment, it was found out that there were 3 administrators who graduated from doctoral degree
programs, 28 graduated from master’s degree program which is comprised of 20 from the faculty, 3 from college chairs and 5
from administrators. 22 from the faculty and 1 from college chair graduated their bachelor’s degree program.
In respondent’s length of service, the results revealed that there were 12 or 22% of the respondents who responded under15
years and above, 16 or 29.62% under 10-14 years,12 or 22.22% under 5 to 9 years length of service and 14 or 25.92% of the
respondents render their respective services for 4 years and below.
In terms Information Computer Technology Background, it was found out that there were only 3 ICT background acquired by
the respondents - groups. There were 21 or 38.88 % of the respondents acquired “web page designing” seminarsattended,13
or 24.07% of the respondents acquired “programming” seminars attended.
Moreover, on the availability of technology resources, it was revealed that the schools have the same distribution of units and
laptops in the campus. Basing on the data, there were only 75 or 71. 42% of desk top computers in every campus and 30 or
28.57% laptop computers were also fairly distributed in every campus. It is therefore found out that both computers, either
desktop or laptop is very useful on the daily work of the respondents in terms of assessment and preparation of school
activities and reporting.
It was also revealed on prior evaluation system utilized by the schools, that, 80 or 76.19% of the respondents answered the
computerized evaluation system higher than the conventional/ manual rating system which is 33.33% only.

On-line performance evaluation system facility development:Itwasrevealedthat fortheinput,62or32.29% respondents
responded in terms of online performance evaluation system facility developed, for the output,64 or 33.33% respondents
responded in terms of online performance evaluation system facility developed and for the process, there were 66or 34%
respondents responded in terms of online performance evaluationsystemfacility.Withthedata gathered,itsresultsimplythat
online performance evaluation system facility is “acceptable” by adopting and implementing the system in three campuses of
Golden Success College.
Level of acceptability of the developed system – Performance Expectancy; It was revealed that therewere3respondents
responded for highly acceptable, 27 for acceptable and 5 for not acceptable in terms of “I can access the system using laptop,
desktop or mobile phones. Moreover, there was none for highly acceptable, 35 for acceptable and 3fornotacceptableinterms
of “I can complete the evaluation quickly using the system”.There were4 respondentswhorespondedforhighlyacceptable,30
for acceptable and 5 for not acceptable in the statement “ I trust the security features of thesystem’.Forthefeature ‘thesystem
provide authentication”, there were 5 who responded for highly acceptable, 30 for acceptable and 5 for not acceptable. The
implication of the result is acceptable in terms of level of acceptability of the developed system.
Level of acceptability of the developed system – Effort Expectancy: It was perceived that the implication for the level of
acceptability of the developed system in terms of effort expectancy is “acceptable”. 5 has perceived that the system is highly
acceptable, 27 responded with acceptable and 5 for not acceptable with the indication of how the system is easy to use.
Majority of the respondents perceived the system quick to evaluate, and so with the implication of acceptability in terms of
convenient to use.
Level of acceptability of the developed system – Social Influence: It was revealed that majority of the respondents group
considered the level of acceptability of the developed system with its social influence acceptable.
Level of acceptability of the developed system – Facilitating conditions: Of the 5 attributes on the level of acceptabilityof
the developed system in terms of facilitating condition, it was perceived by the respondentswhich3wenttohighly acceptable,
27 for acceptable and 5 for not acceptable in terms of intent to use the system in the future. Further, none respondedonhighly
acceptable, 35 for acceptable and 3 for not acceptable in terms of using the system in the future. Overall, the implication was
acceptable in terms of level of acceptability of the developed system.
CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of the study, it can be concluded that technology adoption online performance evaluation system for
faculty of Golden Success College along with the various features of the developed system is acceptable. Hence, online
performance evaluation system must be implemented in order tostructureanddevelopa definingstandardonteachinghigher
education to keep GSC abreast with quality and competitive global education.
RECOMMENDATION
The Proposed Inputs of Technology Adoption on Teaching Performance Evaluation should be given enough consideration by
the administration of Golden Success College for implementation in order to improve the teaching performance of the faculty
which is essential to school operation.
5. OUTPUT OF THE STUDY
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION OF ONLINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR FACULTY
Rationale of the Output
In the academic community, teaching performance evaluation has received renewed attention as a means to improveschools.
People are their primary resource, and the development of these people is the reason for existence. Due to the paramount
importance of the people who are in higher education, it is essential to understandhowwell thesepersonnel areperformingin
their roles and if they fulfilling the responsibilities for which they were hired ( Flaniken, 2009).
It is a fact that schools like GOLDEN SUCCESS COLLEGE are moving towards an innovative approach such as e-learning,
computer assisted instructions, evaluations, mobile applications and some other processes. The recent move to make it
accessible is to develop to a web application that uses a website as the interface or front-end. Users, particularly the students
who will evaluate the teachers can easily access the application from any computer connected to the Internetusing a standard
browser or make it work using a laptop, desktop, tablets and even smart phones.
Objectives
The main objective of the output is to analyze, design, and adopt technology of online performance evaluation system for
faculty of Golden Success College.
Specifically, the output aims to:
1. Create a user friendly application that would operate in a web based operation;
2. save school money as there’s no more need to printing;
3. manage user accounts; and
4. evaluate to a minimum required time using any gadgets in any location.

TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION OF ON LINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR FACULTY
Areas of
Concern
Objectives Strategies
Person
Involved
Budge
t
Sourc
e of
Budge
t
Time
Frame
Expected
Outcome
Actual
Accomplishme
nt
Remark
s
System
Proposal
Users
Features
Functions
User
Satisfaction
Assess the
previous and
technology
adopted on line
performance
evaluation ‘
Identify major
issues/challenge
s of the previous
and the
technology
adopted
performance
evaluation
system
Craft a solution
to the identified
issues
Survey,
interviews
and non –
participative
observation
Review of
related
solutions
Proponent/
Researcher
School
President
Senior IT
Personnel
GSC Faculty
Students
N/A N/A
October
2019–
Decembe
r 2019
System
Proposal
Done
System Design
Create a web
base
application of
performance
evaluation
system for
college faculty of
GSC aligned to
the needs of the
users
Requirement
s Gathering
Proponent/
Researcher
None N/A
January
2020
Online
Performanc
e
Evaluation
System web
base
application
System
Development
Develop a web
base application
of performance
evaluation
system for
college faculty of
GSC aligned to
the needs of the
users
Programmin
g
Proponent/
Researcher
IT Specialist
60,000
GSC
Funds
January
2020
Functional
Web base
application
Current stage:
Prototype 1
System Testing
Test the
functionality
and the usability
of the developed
web based
online
performance
evaluation for
GSC faculty
Unit testing
Integration
testing
Acceptance
testing
Proponent/
Researcher
IT Specialist
None N/A
February
2020
User
approved
web based
application
Implementatio
n
Implement web
base application
of the
technology
adopted online
performance
evaluation of
GSC faculty
Domain
hosting
User
orientation
Proponent/
Researcher
GSC
Administrato
r
Students
30,000
GSC
Funds
March
2020
March
2020
Functional
Web base
application

Breakdown of Proposed Budget for Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty of GSC:
One – time Cost:
System Development: 60,000.00
Annual Recurring Cost:
- Domain Name 12,000.00
TOTAL 72,000.00
TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION OF ON LINE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM FOR FACULTY
USER’S GUIDE
System Procedure
These procedures will get you started, providing information on how to navigate the system applying to admin access and
student access and choose the functional option/links that the user will use.
PART 1 SCHOOL/ SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR
Step 2 Clicks on Dashboard
Step 3 Go to SCHOOL SET UP

3.1. School Year
A. Displays the list of all school year created in the system
B. After clicking the add button, you will be redirected to a form
3.2. Semester
A. Display all the semester created in the system

B. After clicking the add button, you will be redirected to a form
C. Back to list, notice an underline link on a particular record. This means you caneditthatrecord.Afterclickingthelink from
the list, you will be redirected to a form with a populated field.
3.3. Levels
A. Displays all the levels created in the system.

B. After clicking add button, you will be redirected to a form
Step 4 Course Management: This module will be used in organizing the subjects per group/ departments.
4.1. Click on Group
A. Displays all the groups created in the system.
B. After clicking add button, you will be redirected to a new form

4.2. Subjects
A. Displays all the subjects created in the system.
B. After clicking add button, you will be redirected to a form
C. Back to list, notice an underlined link on a particular record. You can edit it and filter by name.

Step 5 User Management: This module will be used to organize the system butforthe currentrequirementsonlythestudents
can access the system.
5.1
A. Displays the list of all the teachers created in the system.
B. After clicking the add button, you will be redirected to a form.
Note: For future use.
C. After clicking the link from the list you will be redirected to a populated form.

5.2. Students
A. Displays the list of all students created in the system.
B. After clicking Add button you will redirected to a new form.
C. Search student filtered by name. After clicking the link from the list you will be redirected to a form with a popular field.

Step 6 Evaluation: This module is the core of teacher performance evaluation system.
6.1. Classroom: This module is use to organize the schedules of teachers and students. Evaluation per classroom by
number of students can be created from here.
A. Displays the list of all the classroom created in the system.
B. After clicking the button, you will be redirected to a form
Note: There are connecting fields to other modules that must be set up first before adding.
C. Back to list (A), click the pencil button icon on a particular record to edit. after which, it will be redirected to a form.
Note: This field will be used when the evaluator is ready to create evaluations per teacher. When this field is marked
checked (√), saving and updating the classroom will auto create numbers of evaluations base on the total number of
students added on the classroom.

6.2. Teacher Evaluation
A. Displays all the list of teacher evaluation created in the system. Search list filtered by teacher or students.
B. After clicking the edit pencil button you will be redirected to a form.
6.3. Consolidated
A. Displays the teacher evaluation’s consilidated list. By defaultwill filteredbycurrentdateoftheevaluationsevaluationdate
right after the student evaluated the teacher.

Part 2 STUDENT ACCESS
Step 1 Log in: Student will use its id number to log in.
2. Dashboard: After a successful log in at the student dashboard, automatically, names of the instructors/teacher who will
handle the subject the student enrolled will pop out.
3. Teacher Evaluation: After clicking the arrow button, it will then be redirected to the evaluation form.
Note: If the student skips a question in the evaluation, the system will prompt a message directly the skipped question. All
questions must be answered. Once all teachers are evaluated, all evaluated lest of teachers will be viewed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. Books
[1] Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance Management.
Printice Hall, London.
[2] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2004). Questions Raised by a
Reasoned Action Approach: Comment on Ogden
(2003), Health Psychology, 23 (4), 431-434.
[3] Bhatnaga, S. and Saxena, P. (2018).AnalysisofFaculty
Performance Evaluation Using Classification.
International Journal of Advanced Research in
Computer Science. Jan/Feb2018, Vol. 9 Issue1,p115-
121. 7p.
[4] Cleveland, J. Landy F. (1983). Performance
Measurement Theory, Hillsdale, N. J,: Lawrence
Eribaum Associates.
[5] Cokin, V. (2004). Feedback as a performance
management technique, Management Solutions, 32,
20-9.
[6] Cokins, G. (2004). Performance Management:
Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk,
and Analytics 1st Edition. Jon Wiley and Sons
Publication, Hoboken, New Jersey.
[7] Davis, F. D and V. Venkateesh, (2004). Towards
Preprototype. User Acceptance Testing of New
InformationSystem;ImplicationsforSoftwareProject
Management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Management, 51: 31-
36.
[8] Davis, F. D., (1989). Percieved Usefulness, perceived
ease of use and user acceptance of Inforation and
Technology, MIS Q., 13: 319-340.
[9] Naidu, A. et al., (2008) Developing, Implementingand
Evaluating Education Mangement and Leadership: A
South African Perspective, Cape Town: Oxford
University Press.
[10] Pulakos, ED (2004). Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM) A Roadmap for Performance
Management Systems. The SHRM Foundation, 1800
Duke Street Alexandria, Virginia, United States of
America 2004, Pages: 56.
B. Journals/ Thesis/ Dissertation
[1] A-Dalbouh, HM. (2013). A Questionnaire Approach
Based On the Technology Acceptance Model for
Mobile Tracking on Patient Progress Applications.
Journal of Computer Science. Department of
Computer Sciences, College of Sciences and Arts at
Unaizah, Al-Qassim University, Al-Qassim, Saudi
Arabia
[2] Aguinis, H. and Pierce, C. (2008). Enhancing The
Relevance Of Organizational Behavior By Embracing
Performance Management Research. Journal of
Educational Behavior.
[3] Bai S., Hussain, S. Rajput, Q. (2014). Faculty
Performance Evaluation System: An Ontological
Approach. IEE/ACS 11th International Conferenceon
Computer Systems and Applications.
[4] Chau, P. and Hu P. J (2007). Information Technology
Acceptance by Individual Professionals: A Model
Comparison Approach. A Journal of the Decisions
Sciences Institute. Volume 32, Issue 4, pp. 699-719.
[5] Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Chapman, K. S., & Hanna, R.
W. (2002). Attitudes of business faculty towards two
methods of collecting teaching evaluations: Paper vs.
online. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 27, 455-462.
doi:10.1080/0260293022000009320
[6] Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman,
K. S. (2004). Gathering facultyteachingevaluations by
in-class and online surveys: Their effects on response
rates and evaluations. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 29, 611-623. doi:
10.1080/02602930410001689171
[7] Elmore, F and Fuhrman H. (2001). ResearchFindsthe
False Assumption of Accountability. The Education
Digest. Vol.67, Iss.4, pp 9-14.
[8] Heneman III HG and Milanowski A (2003). Assessing
human resource alignment: The foundation for
building total teacher quality improvement. Madison
USA: Center for Education Research University of
WisconsinMadison, 42p
[9] King, W. and He J. (2006). A Meta-Analysis of the
Technology Acceptance Model. Information and
Management. Volume 43, Issue 6, Pages 740-751
[10] Kumar, A and Jain, R. (2017). Faculty Evaluation
System. 6th International Conference on Smart
Computing and Communications, Kurukshetra,India.
[11] Ma, Q. and Liu, L. (2004). Technology and Acceptance
Model: A meta-Analysis of Empirical Findings.Journal
of Organizational and End User Computing.
[12] Mosoge MJ and Pilane MJ (2014). Performance
Management: The Neglected Imperative of
Accountability Systems in Education. South African
Journal of Education. Volume 34, No. 1.
[13] Park, Y. S. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology
Acceptance Model in Understanding University
Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning.
Educational Technology & Society 12(3):150-162.
[14] Selim, H. (2003). An Empirical Investigation of
Student AcceptanceofCourseComputers&Education
Volume 40, Issue 4, May 2003, Pages 343-360.
[15] Tong, HM and Bures A. (2014). An Empirical Study of
Faculty Evaluation Systems: Business Faculty
Perceptions. Journal of Education for Bussiness.
Volume 62, 1987 - Issue 7.
[16] Vinkatesh, V. et. al.,(2012).ConsumerAcceptanceand
Use of Information Technology:ExtendingtheUnified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Vol. 36,
No. 1, pp. 157-178.
[17] Yarbrough, A. and Smith, T. (2007). Technology
Acceptance among Physicians: A New Take on TAM.
Medical Care Research and Review. Vol. 64, Issue 6.
Medical Care Research and Review
C. Electronic Sources
[1] Anderson, J., Brown, G., & Spaeth, S. (2006). Online
student evaluations and responseratesreconsidered.
Innovate, 2(6). Retrieved from
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?View=art
icle&id=301
[2] Alam, M. and Hamida, E. (2014). Performance
Evaluation of IEEE 802. 15. 6 MAC for Wearable Body
Sensor Networksusinga Space-Timedependent radio
link model," 2014 IEEE/ACS 11th International
Conference on Computer Systems (AICCSA).
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7073
232.
[3] Johnson, T. (2002, April). Online student ratings: Will
students respond? Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,
Louisiana. Retrieved from http://www.eric.
ed.gov/PDFS/ED465794.pdf

Technology Adoption of Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Technology Adoption of Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty

Similar to Technology Adoption of Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty (20)

More from ijtsrd

More from ijtsrd (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Technology Adoption of Online Performance Evaluation System for Faculty